Sunday, January 22, 2017

I am thoroughly and totally disgusted by the blatant and vicious
shaming of Yael (Ivanka) Trump, especially by ostensibly Orthodox
people.

Facebook and Twitter are ablaze with snide, smarmy
comments that call into question the sincerity (and by extension, the
validity) of Yael Trump’s conversion to Judaism, because she attended
her father’s Inaugural Ball on Friday night and was driven home
afterwards, out of concern for her safety. Those behind these posted
comments are the same people who (correctly) protest when the Israeli
Chief Rabbinate questions the religious bonafides of converts. Their
hypocrisy screams to the heavens. Thirty Six times times the Torah
condemns hurting, or oppressing or discomfiting a convert (Baba Metzia
59b). The Torah makes absolutely no distinction between the daughters of
kings or the sons of day workers. People are entitled to oppose the
policies of President Donald Trump. However, they have absolutely no
right, none, to vilify his daughter, a woman who chose to join Klal
Yisrael and who is, by all accounts, a sincere Shabbat Observer. Yes, they snidely object, but what of attending the Inaugural Ball on Friday Night?It's
a good question, and perhaps there was room to demur. However, there is
also halakhically unassailable precedent for Jared and Yael to attend
her father's inaugural ball, on Shabbat. Indeed, those who carp and
criticize are showing their abject ignorance of Halakhah, or they are
revealing that their political convictions take precedence over their
religious convictions.
The Rabbis made allowances for those in public office, and the family
of the President definitely falls into this category (cf. Rambam, Hil.
AKuM 11, 1-3). The same holds true of being driven home on Friday night,
which was justified on the grounds of the couple’s personal safety (Piquah Nefesh).
Does anyone doubt, especially in the white hot atmosphere that obtains
in the US today, that someone might try to harm them? Furthermore, Jared
and Yael apparently did nothing that was forbidden on Shabbat.

All
of this leaves me thinking of the words of the second century BCE
Hasmonean king, Alexander Yannai to his wide, Shlomtzion Alexandra:
‘Fear not the Pharisees and the non-Pharisees, but [fear] the hypocrites
who ape the Pharisees; because their deeds are the deeds of Zimri but
they expect a reward like Phineas’ (Sotah 22b).

Friday, January 06, 2017

Every year, the 9th of Tevet catches me unawares. No matter how many years have passed, and this year marks twenty six, I find myself unprepared to again confront the reality of a world which my Mother ע"ה doesn't inhabit. As those who had the privilege of knowing her are well aware, my mother was larger than life. She was smart, incisive, fun, principled, with a very clearly defined sense of personal morality. She was also incredibly strong in character. She had to be, in order to carry on after being widowed at 49, left with three not easy boys under the age of 16, and a financial situation that was (at best) precarious. My mother was a woman of incredible dignity. One of her guiding principles was to always be sure to do the right thing in life, the proper thing, even if it was uncomfortable. The 'right thing' could refer to always dressing properly ('like a mensch') when you went into town, or to being polite and restrained even under the most distressing circumstances. One kept one's dignity, one's self-respect, always. I often think back to her words on the morning of my Dad's passing, forty-six years ago. It was before 7AM, and we had just heard from the hospital that my father had passed away in his sleep, a month after suffering a massive heart attack and the morning he was due to be released to recover at home. My mother gathered the three of us in the room I shared with my brother, David. I remember her holding us and saying something like this: 'Daddy wanted you to grow up into proud, God fearing, moral Jews. You must always remember that, at the end of the day, all you really have is one another.' Fear of God. Pride in being Jewish. Leading a moral, upstanding life. Devotion to Family. These were the values that my mother instilled in us, and which we try to instill in our children (two of whom, sadly, never got to know her). Trying to pass on her legacy doesn't ease the pain of her absence. It does give us a way to ensure her immortality.

Thursday, January 05, 2017

The trial of Elor Azariah has expanded
well beyond its original contours. From the case of a single soldier, who was
yesterday convicted of manslaughter in the death of a neutralized terrorist, it
has ballooned into a polarizing event, which expresses and exacerbates many of
the fissures within Israeli society. The latter development is deeply
regrettable, inter alia, because it encourages imprecise and
irresponsible declarations, when what is required is nuance, precision and
caution.

To
begin with, he declares that ‘shooting a terrorist is an obligation that is
necessary if it can prevent bodily injury or during the act before more damage
is committed. That is without question. But after the terrorist act has
finished and the perpetrator contained, to harm him is itself murder.’ The
first portion of Landes’ statement is undoubtedly correct. However, it is simply
not the case that ‘after the terrorist act has finished and the perpetrator
contained – itself a judgment call – to harm him is itself murder.’

Azariah was convicted of
Manslaughter, not Murder. His actions were, even per the court, the result of
the explosive, adrenaline laced situation on the ground. That of course, does
not excuse him. However, that is apparently why the army chose to charge him
with manslaughter instead of murder, which they initially considered. The
circumstances, intent and state of mind of an individual are critical elements
to the evaluation of a crime. Calling his acts murder is, therefore, deeply irresponsible,
a wanton distortion of both Israeli Law and Halakhah (Cf. Yam shel Shlomo Bava Kamma 8:42). In
addition, according to Jewish Law, it is by no means clear whether the case of
Azariah would be deemed a violation of civilian or military law (i.e. Hilkhot
Rotzeach vs. Hilkhot Melakhim).

Rabbi
Landes devotes most of his attention to a vitriolic condemnation of rabbis who
deny that ‘the court’s decision is absolutely just, and in full accordance with
Halakhah. Those rabbis who say otherwise or who remain silent are accomplices
in this tragedy/travesty…Those rabbis are part of a not so hidden, indeed
blatant, racism that pervades our yeshivot’s batei midrash (study halls) and
common conversation….Fueled by messianic imagery of this being an apocalyptic
moment in Jewish history, restraint is shoved aside. And with it, Jewish
notions of the horror of murder are dumped into the sewer of messianic
madness…’

Let
us put aside the fact that Elor Azariah is not the product of a Religious
Zionist home or education. To whom is the author referring in this sweeping,
demagogic condemnation? All rabbis? Some rabbis? A few rabbis? In the absence
of names and citations, Rabbi Landes proves himself as guilty of the kind of
conspiratorial mind-set as the chimerical Religious Zionist (I assume it is to
them he’s referring) eminence noire that he invokes in his article. Honestly.
Are there religious and political extremists within the Religious Zionist Camp?
Absolutely. They are as real, and nefarious, as radical Leftists who demonize
not only the political Right (and Center-Right), but every aspect of Judaism.
Are these extremists representative of their entire community and its
institutions? Absolutely not.

The
same is true of the author’s invocation of ‘messianic imagery of this being an
apocalyptic moment in Jewish history.’ As with his legal analysis, Rabbi Landes
is only partially correct and his conclusions, accordingly distorted.

It
is true that messianic aspirations are an integral, and abiding part of
Traditional Judaism. It is extremely odd to find an ostensibly Orthodox rabbi
decrying them. However, and more to the present point, it is also true that
messianic aspirations, based on the teachings of Rabbis Kook (père et fils)
motivated and energized the settlement movement from the seventies until the
nineties. What Rabbi Landes seems to have missed is that the signing of the
Oslo accords started a period of messianic disappointment and crisis within the
Religious Zionist world, a process which came to a head with the Disengagement
from Gaza (as Ari Shavit once noted). The Religious Zionist community no longer
bases its political positions on messianic or apocalyptic conceptions (if,
indeed, it ever did). All one needs to do is compare the many and varied
responses in the Religious Zionist leadership to the Amona issue, compared to
the anti-Oslo demonstrations, to see the tectonic shift that has occurred. Reading
Landes’ words, I was tempted to paraphrase Barack Obama’s retort to Mitt
Romney: ‘Peace Now wants its 1980’s Antichrist back.’

At
the end of his remarks, sadly, Rabbi Landes descends into out and out demagogy.
‘To those who admire Azaria and seek to emulate or defend him, we can only say:
This is not the Torah’s path.’ As I already wrote, there are obviously those in
Israeli society who admire Azaria. There might be those who think, like Lt.
Gen. Raphael Eitan, that no terrorist should be allowed to emerge from his
actions alive. I challenge, Rabbi Landes, to adduce proof that Israeli children
(much less religious children) are being taught or encouraged by their parents
and teachers and rabbis to emulate him, with malice aforethought! As to
defending him, I would like to call his attention to the fact that the Hebrew
social media are full of nuanced assertions that both admit Azariah’s guilt,
while noting the impossibly complex, highly charged nature of anti-terrorist,
urban warfare. These type of statements, from both Right and Left, provide the
type of critical nuance and precision that the tragedy of Elor Azariah requires
and that Rabbi Landes’ article so lacks.